Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837175
PeteSpencer wrote:
TopCat wrote:
PeteSpencer wrote:Shirley the point is that if you’re flying anywhere with on/off controlled airspace the onus is on you to check the notams for precise times: I imagine most people would do this and I guess as per OP @TopCat would find himself pretty much in a minority.

Could you clarify the sense in which I'm in a minority here? You say that most people would check the precise times, and indeed I did.

So I'm not sure what you mean.


Simply that if you are in an airspace which has notified hours of activity that becomes active while you’re in it as you describe in the OP, the majority of folk would have seen the notams and wouldn’t be there in the first place .
Hence you would be in a minority :wink:

Ah, I see. Yes, you're right. What I actually did was what, as you say, the majority would probably do, but if I'd done something different then I'd have been in a minority.

Yes, I agree. But I don't think it's right that we're effectively forced to 'play it safe' like that by what is a lack of clarity and reasonable process at best.

As @xtophe points out, to be on the safe side, we have to treat uncontrolled airspace as prohibited airspace for the 10-15 mins before it becomes active.

Would it be so hard to standardise and codify the 'Norwich solution' as @akg1486 has described as his experience outside the UK?
#1837185
Dave W wrote:Where is that written down, @chevvron?

If Class D is closed, it's Class G. Surely not some uncertain intermediate where you have to check and CYA at regular intervals!

Why should it need to be written down anywhere?
ATC assume that pilots are intelligent and any pilot will know that NOTAMs can be amended after they're airborne. If you do what I suggest plus you listen out on the frequency, you will hear ATC broadcast that their CAS will become active shortly (at Farnborough we used to broadcast 5 min before CAS[T] became active and also when it actually became active), then if ATC open earlier than the original NOTAMMed time and moan about you being too close to them when it actually becomes active, you can say 'listen to your tape' in reply.
Why are you in particular always arguing about things which I say which are meant to help pilots?
I find your constant carping most unhelpful; I know at least one person who is currently refusing to post on this forum because of your constant snide remarks about ATC. :evil:
#1837192
TopCat wrote:As @xtophe points out, to be on the safe side, we have to treat uncontrolled airspace as prohibited airspace for the 10-15 mins before it becomes active.


"Only cross this field if you can do so in 9.8 seconds. The bull can do it in 10."

Otherwise if the controller is there 15 mins before the airspace is reestablished, you could request clearance.

Oh, and I did mean it wasn't that wooded on the ground rather than at 2000ft! ;-) Yes, I admit it isn't smooth fields but it doesn't make me avoid the area (it's my standard route to the IoW from my base. I go down on the eastern side of Southampton's airspace, back up the western side, up the gap, pretty much every time I do it. I suppose it's just become a habit!
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837197
@chevvron: That's an incorrect reflection of what I write. I do not "constantly carp about ATC"; far from it - I have a deep respect for the profession.

I wish, for some, that the reverse for GA pilots was true.

What I will do is point out that some ATC posters on here are often unwilling to consider that the manner in which they address VFR flyers (with a constant undertone of "you are all useless and are a danger to yourselves and others, and I'm not going to explain it because you are too stupid to understand") is not only unhelpful in debate, it is clearly untrue.

The ATC / GA / CAT community is all striving towards the same thing - flight safety.

Flight safety does not come from rigid application of historic rules; it comes from continuous improvement.

The introduction of dynamic airspace management is a fairly new concept for many in the UK, and has not yet had the chance to be exercised in depth due to COVID etc. There will inevitably be practicalities to iron out, and a bit of pragmatism from both pilots and controllers in the minutes before opening and closing will inevitably help that ironing to the benefit of all.

Implying that a re-opening time of, say, 1500 means in practice 1450, just in case, and you as the pilot under workload already should also - in what is Class G - continue to make regular calls throughout the closure period "just in case" is a made-up creeping amendment of the rules pertaining to Class G.

But worse than that, it is unnecessary - a bit of pragmatism from all would deal with this nicely, as - has been pointed out - it already does elsewhere in the World.

Why is it always the pilot that has to compromise, when a bit of tactical pragmatism from the controller - within their rules - would manage also?

"We're just about to re-open as CAS. Who is inside that airspace currently? Ah, thanks, Golf Right Charlie, on re-opening you cleared VFR to exit at point Joker". Adjust phraseology to suit; retain pragmatic attitude.

Even better - on first call on frequency when closed, respond with a recorded message which confirms pilots that (a) The airspace is indeed currently Class G; (b) when it is scheduled to re-open; (c) what the pilot is able to do now, and even (d); highlight in advance what to expect as the airspace reverts to Class G.

A bit of active error-trapping in advance is worth a LOT of after-the event investigation and soul-searching. Don't leave everything to the pilot; anticipate and help them out.

None of the above is "carping" from me; what is carping is blaming all ills in the GA World on the pilot. What is carping is people coming up with blinkered excuses as to why no change to a rigid historic rule is possible, despite major change elsewhere (e.g. flexible airpace management). It may need to be a rigid rule; it doesn't have to be the OLD rigid rule applied to a new airspace management concept.

Thankfully I don't think that attitude is as prevalent amongst the wider community of ATCOs as it is upon some of their cohort to be found on social media.

"Carping" out.
ChampChump, TopCat, PropPeter and 1 others liked this
#1837199
A colleague, PPL, was on a DoD posting at the time of 9/11. When GA flying was allowed to resume, the low-level routes between White House, Andrews and Camp David would, apparently, be activated as Temporary Prohibited by NOTAM only over AFTN. A GA aircraft within any at the instant of activation would swiftly generate a close encounter with an armed helicopter of F16, and could lead to FAA or Federal Court action; former with potentially severe administrative sanctions, latter with more severe criminal ones. AOPA advice was to treat all of them as active at all times. Obviously, this was before the days of panel or tablet-based moving map systems or data links for GA aircraft.

I do not know how they are managed today.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837210
Three pages (so far) of complete speculation.

Of course, the operator of a piece of airspace is going to take a pragmatic and more importantly, safe approach to the activation of a piece of airspace.

The activation will be preempted by blind transmissions on the published frequency and observation of any surveillance display supporting the airspace and then targeted attempts to contact and offer any necessary clearance to traffic inside or wishing to penetrate the airspace once declared active.

This is not really a new concept although considerably exacerbated by COVID but Southampton for example, have been switching their Class D on and off for many years.

Clearly GA behaviours and practices can help in the effective management of the situation by listening out on the published frequency for the airspace volume, making blind transmissions upon entering and leaving the nominal volume, selecting an appropriate monitoring code if applicable and in particular, ensuring the correct Flight Identity is being transmitted which considerably eases the task of identifying contacts that require an ATC clearance to continue post activation.

Please don’t believe that controllers are sat waiting to fill in an MOR about the first aircraft they identify inside the CTR post activation. That is not the objective of the exercise.
chevvron, IMCR liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837220
@chevvron: Rules have changed in the past - the recent past, too; see Flexible Use Airspace that wasn't there previously.

What is written by the CAA is not incised into stone, never to be amended again.

I think that is just an excuse for not thinking about how to deliver practicalities of making life easier and safer for everybody.
#1837223
I agree totally with Cub.

This is a complete storm in a tea cup. When class D is resumed, if you happen to be in the zone talk to the controller, Why would you not be monitoring this frequency? Surely it isnt this difficult. I also agree with Cub, the one thing controllers are not trying to do is entrap anyone. Personally (and this is speculation) I suspect they are very happy to be as helpful as they can to GA, the bad press regarding reporting infringements is not because the controllers cant wait to report someone, its because they are told they will make a report. In over twenty years of GA I can count on one hand the bad experiences I have had with controllers.
chevvron liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837248
IMCR wrote:the one thing controllers are not trying to do is entrap anyone.

Cub wrote:Please don’t believe that controllers are sat waiting to fill in an MOR about the first aircraft they identify inside the CTR post activation. That is not the objective of the exercise.

I don't think I've ever read anything on this forum that suggests ATCOs are in any way to blame for the jaundiced view many, including me, have of the infringement situation. Or are malicious or unprofessional in any way.

I've read comments lamenting the rules that force them to raise MORs for things that might be better dealt with in other ways, and the fact that once MORs are in the system, the way they're dealt with is perceived to be obscure, inconsistent and in some cases draconian. And I've read about the Barton anomaly, which is a completely separate issue.

But nothing aimed at ATCOs.

Cub wrote:Three pages (so far) of complete speculation.

Well yes. But the presence of the speculation shows that the answer is not obvious. When I raised the question, it was completely genuine - I didn't know the answer, and clearly, quite a few GA pilots didn't know the answer either.
Of course, the operator of a piece of airspace is going to take a pragmatic .... and other very sensible stuff snipped

I'm genuinely really pleased if this is the case.

But it's absolutely not obvious that the sensible pragmatic approach that we would probably all agree on here, is what will be laid down and required to be implemented by the controllers. If you can stick a wing over the edge of CAS, CAIT goes off, and that's a MOR in the system, it wouldn't have been remotely surprising to me if CAIT would likewise have gone off the instant CAS came online, and a MOR was then required.

It's great if this isn't the case.

If it's all written down somewhere as SOP for NOTAMed CAS activations, then all good, and I'd like to see it.

But if it's not, it should be.
Dave W liked this
#1837367
Dave W wrote:Where I think we do sometimes miss a trick is not having a recorded message triggered by an aircraft calling up on frequency, telling you that they are closed, That way you get unambiguous and timely confirmation of the status of the airspace whether open or closed; open, of course, you'd get a live controller response.

The French do that very well, and I think it helps everybody out in terms of both workload and accidental infringements for what cannot be a lot of money.

Yes my brother told me when he called Toulouse on a sunday, he got an automatic message.
But in this country, there will be as many hoops to jump through to get such a system approved by the CAA as there are to get an iap approved at a FISO airfield and it COULD, I said COULD, end up being very expensive and aerodrome authorities unwilling to pay for such a system will simply say 'keep someone on duty instead' like the RAF used to do; when I was on my PPL course at Cambridge in the '70s, every other military airfield I called I would get 'standby for controller' as an initial answer. (Wonder if they still do that?)